INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
Executive Committee
February 3, 2015 3:30pm, HMSU 227
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C. Olsen, K.
Yousif.
Members Absent: S. Lamb, V. Sheets
Ex-Officio Present: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
Guests: L. Hall, D. Hantzis, J. Turman, K. Wilkinson
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley:
i. J. Maynard will be here late today.
ii. I’m not sure I’ve been here with you since I met with the House Ways and
Means Committee; we asked for $4.7 million in a special appropriation to
deal with student success issues, and we hope that when the House budget
comes out we will see some of that money. We have asked for a special
appropriation, and it is not unheard of for universities to get those. Other
universities in the state have received them, and they were rolled into their
base budgets the next year.
iii. We recently had ISU Day at the state capitol. Today is the 150th
anniversary of the bill that enabled us to form. It was initially passed by
the House, but not the Senate, and the Senate was called back into a
special session in December of that year—most likely for ratification of
the 13th Amendment—and our bill got through at that time. The students
did a wonderful job. Over 50 legislators came by and talked to students,
and the Governor was here as well.
iv. Enrollment numbers are up 6 percent in the spring semester. Graduate
studies was up about 11 percent, and undergraduate enrollment was up by
3 percent. The admissions numbers continue to look good. If you
happened to be involved in interviews for Presidential Scholars, you know
we couldn’t be prouder of our current students. They are incredible young
adults and have made very good progress.
b. Provost J. Maynard: No Report.
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell:
i. Regarding the budget, D. McKee put out an email last week essentially
saying that we wouldn’t be talking again for a while until we knew more,
but she had been instructed by the President to make a list of all the
regularly-approved non-budgeted items in order to fold them into the
budget. These include, for example, stipends for Faculty Senate officers,
money spent on temporary faculty who are here each year, etc. I have
taken this instruction from the President to D. McKee as at least an
acknowledgement that they may go to what the officers are asking them to
do, which is to honestly budget both expenses and revenues, as well as
create the reserve needed for unexpected contingencies. I consider that to
be progress.
ii. The next meeting we have will include the new general counsel K.
Butwin. There are many, many things we will discuss with her, but I want
to list them for you so you can think about them. We are getting today and
discussing with a representative of FAC the Amorous and Familial
Relationships Policy recommendations, we will soon get from FAC the
Extraordinary Circumstances Personnel Action recommendations, and the
President is withdrawing his change to the Whistleblower Policy—but has
proposed procedures that I am not particularly excited by, nor are the other
officers. I am asking FAC to look at them. I am inclined now to not view
them as a problem because the President is looking to note that the
Whistleblower Policy is would be very narrow in its interpretation. I am
not as concerned about the procedures that apply to almost no one as I am
about others being considered. K. Butwin will be drafting that and will be
consulting with FAC.
iii. What I heard today from the President’s Advisory Council, was that fact
that the Department of Education has interpreted Title IX’s reference to
sexual discrimination as including sexual assault and its non-progressive
treatment also as a form of sexual discrimination. The requirement to now
receive Title IX resources includes a new look at the Sexual Assault
Policies, and today K. Butwin went through all of them.
iv. The Provost Search Committee narrowed the list of candidates from the 10
or 11 they did at the airport or through Skype to 4 or 5, and D. McKee
stated that list could be out by this afternoon.
1. D. Bradley: They are struggling to slot them in for February
interviews at this time; candidates are trying to figure out when it
would be in their best interest to come, and some are trying to push
into March.
3. Approval of the Minutes of January 20, 2014. A. Anderson, K. Yousif. Vote: 7-0-0
4. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. K. Yousif: I sent a question…I didn’t know if we had talked about indexing pay
to adjuncts so that an across-the-board raise would impact their pay as well.
i. J. Maynard: It doesn’t go into effect until fall 2015. I sat with M. Green
and went through how we treat Lecturers as well as Instructors. There was
no disagreement.
5. CAAC Item
a. Creation of the School of Nursing within the College of Nursing, Health, and
Human Services
b. Renaming the College of Nursing, Health, and Human Services to the College of
Health and Human Services
i. R. Guell: I wish for these to be viewed as tied together. Motion: A.
Anderson, K. Bolinger. Vote: 7-0-0
1. D. Bradley: I think the Administration agrees that we shouldn’t
have a School of Nursing unless we change the name of the
College to the College of Health and Human Services.
2. R. Guell: I will ask J. Turman and L. Hall to speak to this…my
understanding of when we created Schools was that they were
simply departments. When I was on CAAC I thought that was the
way it happened. In the Faculty Senate minutes of February 18,
2010 there was a floor amendment regarding allowing departments
within Schools. The thing that happens when/if we pass this is we
had just about gotten to the point where we were ready for Section
305 of the Handbook to be discussed. This will blow up 305,
because 305 imagines Schools as equal to departments. There is no
reference in 305 for what is required by accreditation bodies in
Nursing, and that is the Administrator above department level be a
nurse when evaluating P and T documents. There is nothing in 305
or the paperwork to route to the Executive Director of Nursing, and
for the director’s opinions to be in the document. For example, if I
am up for promotion I have the ability to rebut my Dean’s
conclusion. There is no right to rebut something that doesn’t exist.
FAC will need time after this to go back and look at certain
discrete areas that need some work. I hope we will consider this on
the merits on the issue and work on the P and T in particular.
3. L. Hall: I think regardless of the proposition, those changes have to
be made.
4. J. Turman: This will help too. I hear what you’re saying. If
Physical Therapy gets accredited they have to do the same things.
5. R. Guell: I am prepared to believe this Section 305 fix needed to
happen.
6. L. Hall: The definition of the characteristics of a School that was
approved in the February 18 minutes was there. We identified the
characteristics. The Nursing Program did have a fall enrollment of
1400 students when it was first put through. Many of our staff and
faculty are involved with pre-nursing students as well. There are
multiple sources of external funding, and if you will look in
Appendix C, there is a list of available scholarships. It also
includes a state line-item budget of $204,000 designated for
Nursing and used for adjunct faculty, faculty travel, development,
etc. We have multiple academic programs—majors, minors,
graduate, undergraduate, etc. We also have accelerated programs
and various tracks within our graduate and undergraduate
programs. A School is a common designation in our field. Table 1
in the document lists Schools of Nursing in Indiana within similar
peer institutions. Those are either stand-alone Schools or standalone Colleges of Nursing. Table 2 is based on U.S. News and
World Report’s Top 20 data; all those listed are either stand-alone
Schools or Colleges. The biggest evidence that brings us to request
a change is our external image. When I am speaking with
stakeholders, a variety of accrediting bodies, alumni relations, and
current and prospective students, it’s all about the image and
judgment of our nursing program by these people. I know J.
Turman gets questioned a lot about this. It is confusing to alumni
and potential donors in particular as to our structure. We wish to
simply give a name and identity to our structure. Appendix A is the
current structure, and Appendix B is the proposed. Nothing
changes except the Nursing unit simply gets a name.
7. K. Bolinger: Regarding R. Guell’s statement, there is no structure
for the P and T path.
8. R. Guell: It has been an extra Handbook method of dealing with
this. I did not realize until this week that they have been doing this
for two years as instructed by their accreditors. I am disappointed
the Administration did not point this out. This has been a lawsuit
waiting to happen. FAC needs to fix this ASAP.
9. K. Bolinger: I thought the change was necessitating that.
10. L. Hall: Essentially our accreditors have said a nurse has to be over
the entire Nursing unit. Their duties entail involvement in
budgeting, hiring, reviews, everything. That was made very clear
to us in 2011. We’re functioning as a School now—it’s literally
just putting a name on it. Nothing changes. We want this identity,
particularly for external reasons.
11. D. Bradley: The title, “Executive Director of Nursing:” is this
common?
12. L. Hall: It is fairly common. I don’t foresee a change in that. It’s
just applying an identity to what already exists. The College
Constitution already supports this. The structure changed in 2012.
13. J. Turman: I have been supportive of this as a Dean. When I first
interviewed for this job my comment was, I don’t know how you
do this. Nursing should be a recognized unit. Clearly accrediting
bodies were saying that at the same time. I want faculty to be
competitive for all types of funding awards and recognition that is
based upon coming from a School of or College of Nursing. If
someone wants to move up into Nursing Administration I want
them to do that within the School of Nursing so they become
competitive enough to become a Dean of Nursing. It’s very helpful
externally because alums are always so confused about what is
going on here. I think this will help faculty and attract even more
students. We already have many, but it would help to have a
formal identity.
14. R. Guell: A principal objector to the whole concept of departments
within a school came from the Registrar’s Office, who stated that
Banner simply cannot handle three layers of administration for
faculty. Did that technical glitch ever get resolved?
15. L. Hall: I haven’t heard of it. We are currently functioning within it
with no issues.
16. J. Turman: I haven’t heard about that.
17. R. Guell: There was a concern expressed, a definitive concern
expressed, like that should be the end of the story. I dismissed the
view that Banner was not going to dictate what we can and cannot
do.
18. D. Bradley: My understanding is that Ball State and Purdue both
use Banner.
19. D. Hantzis: I’m wondering, if there is a question of the title of
Executive Director and you anticipate other decisions like this, that
makes it easy to handle if it was the same title.
20. L. Hall: We have no intention of changing the title.
21. D. Hantzis: Is it coded as Associate Dean?
22. D. Bradley: Human Resources undoubtedly should view this as
equivalent to Associate Dean.
23. R. Guell: It’s not really, because Associate Deans cannot insert an
opinion directly into an assigned document.
24. D. Bradley: The College Constitution was changed and you all
approved it?
25. R. Guell: Yes, but at the time they did not see—or the Constitution
did not describe—the path of personnel evaluation.
26. D. Hantzis: We didn’t catch it as a compliance issue. I was on FAC
when we reviewed the last changes under R. Williams. We will
have to check.
27. R. Guell: We should pass this and then fix what needs to be fixed.
This may not be the last of issues like these.
28. L. Hall: As for the second part of this, just because it’s redundant
to have “Nursing” within the College name, it just made sense to
eliminate it from Health and Human Services.
6. AAC Recommendations
a. K. Wilkinson: As a representative of AAC we approved the Fall 2016 plus
calendar. We went over it handily and had many good discussions. Positives
include: it was considered good pacing. We talked with our colleagues regarding
changes of dates like Fall Break and how important that is for freshmen. As a
retention issue, there is comment regarding that. Pedagogically, having a full
week before Study Week is huge—I know all of us have suffered with that. We
feel this makes it easier. The discussion also included the longer break between
fall and spring semesters. It would allow for a more in-depth community
engagement piece, and it’s also a nice beginning when you start the Tuesday after
Martin Luther King Day. Actually, there are many universities that do so. One
concern is with the multi single-day breaks. Large courses with multiple sections,
particularly labs, we wanted to be sensitive to. The other concern was about the
closing dates for the residence halls. In the past there have been issues with the
last day of finals. Students will take a final and then have an hour to get out of
their dorms. We wanted to change that. There was some cleanup required in terms
of grammar, punctuation, and consistent formatting. We are looking forward to
seeing how students and faculty react to this. Initial comments were very positive.
i. D. Bradley: My understanding is Administration sets the calendar.
ii. R. Guell: And we either endorse it or we don’t. We will move the voting
on this until next week so you can all look over the changes.
7. Student Evaluation Questions
a. R. Guell: I don’t want to vote on this today, but next week because the Student
Affairs Committee is assembling comments for the final version of this. It will be
on the February Senate agenda. I have notes from a Senate meeting, I don’t
remember if it was E. Southard or someone else, who noted that the questions in
traditional format could very well be used in distance-learning classes as well.
There was that issue, there was the question of a truly open-ended question (“Any
other comments?”), there was a concern expressed about specifically what the
Likert scale would be, and there was the assertion that these weren’t questions but
“items.” We also didn’t take up the paragraph FAC gave us in November. We
dealt with their statements and thoughts. It was my oversight. We didn’t deal with
the other things FAC said.
b. R. Guell: Let’s start with whether we believe that the question, “My instructor
demonstrates enthusiasm for the course” is an appropriate distance question.
i. K. Bolinger: I think so, only because we discussed whether “NA” was an
appropriate response. A responsible student needs an “out” to say they
don’t have a reasonable gauge.
ii. C. MacDonald: The “NA” response is not available.
iii. A. Anderson: Why is “NA” not available?
iv. R. Guell: If common questions are truly common there is no such thing as
“NA.”
v. A. Anderson: At the departmental level the structure can be less
traditional. What works for the average class doesn’t work for others.
There are limited options.
vi. K. Bolinger: Don’t you also have the option of not just the administration
of questions, but how they would be used? We have the option to develop
a narrative around results, so if there are weird circumstances they could
be explained. If it doesn’t seem to fit I have the option to develop a
narrative to explain why that doesn’t seem valid.
vii. C. MacDonald: Again, I’m not confident in students’ ability to evaluate
this 100 percent of the time in distance courses.
viii. R. Guell: How many think this belongs as a question that is truly uniform
for everyone?
ix. K. Bolinger: You have loaded the question.
x. R. Guell: How many think that this belongs in the list of questions asked
of everyone? 2-4-0
xi. R. Guell: When we hear from SAC we will make that final determination.
Do we want to direct what the Likert scale is?
xii. D. Hantzis: We put in we have to tell them what the scale is.
xiii. D. Bradley: We don’t want it to change from question to question.
xiv. R. Guell: Not within the common questions. Are we comfortable with the
standard five responses within the common questions?
xv. K. Bolinger: Just looking at, for example, “I believe I can approach my
instructor for help,” there’s “always” on one end and “never” on the other.
xvi. K. Yousif: They usually use “strongly agree,” etc.
xvii. R. Guell: Do we want a truly open question?
xviii. D. Hantzis: When we served on the committee we realized the answers
were going to live in a place we didn’t want them.
xix. D. Bradley: You don’t want them other than as input to the instructor.
They shouldn’t even go to the chair.
xx. R. Guell: Open-ended or “Any comment?”
xxi. D. Bradley: “Any comment.” Those should not go to the chair or anyone
but the instructor. They are not of any value to anyone else.
xxii. R. Guell: That brings us to other things FAC said in November I had
caused us to overlook.
xxiii. D. Hantzis: We discussed these with the Taskforce too and reaffirmed that
we wanted to suggest that it should not be optional for there to be
questions below the line. We believe that in the best interest of the faculty
more questions have to be asked that cannot go above the line. It should be
up to the college to determine whether they are college or department
questions. B. Balch is strong on this in FAC. Arts & Sciences, for
example, could decide that departments could write their own. Education
could write questions at the college level only. It’s not up to us to decide at
what level they should be written.
xxiv. D. Bradley: We have had very little success getting forty departments to
do the same thing. There needs to be a universal set—or a college set—of
default questions.
xxv. R. Guell: Does anyone here have language that you would suggest as
motion-type language we could add an amendment to that would mandate
that colleges have questions or ensure the creation of departmental ones,
and would allow for the “Any other comment” questions to appear at
every department level, but the results only go to the instructor?
xxvi. D. Hantzis: When we wrote additional related recommendations we hadn’t
considered a “write whatever you want.” I agree that needs to go to
instructors only. We could rewrite some of that language. We didn’t
suggest that. The recommendation that says, “No set of 6-10 questions
will provide useful data. FAC strongly recommends that the Senate work
with Academic Affairs to ensure that the process of developing a viable
xxvii.
xxviii.
xxix.
xxx.
xxxi.
xxxii.
xxxiii.
instrument takes seriously the need for college/department/instructor level
questions to be added, as provided for in the tool. If the only questions are
the common questions, the data are nearly without value to faculty or to
faculty review processes.” Part of that could be reworded into a motion
from FAC.
R. Guell: Between you and me we will come up with an action motion for
next week.
D. Hantzis: We had quite a conversation about the “Any comment” one.
That would be below the second line.
E. Hampton: For the same reason we are thinking about “Any other
comment” should we have open-ended questions at the department or
college level? They would be mandated to be part of the biennial review.
How will we fit that?
C. Olsen: I was thinking these in bold would not be go to everyone.
D. Bradley: You could put them in as universal but I would have them still
only go to instructors.
C. Olsen: I thought S. Powers told us they couldn’t do that.
D. Hantzis: Mandate that the college will develop five questions that will
include at least these two.
C. Olsen: As long as that will work for S. Powers.
xxxiv.
8. FAC Items
a. BCoE Constitution. R. Guell, K. Yousif. Vote: 7-0-0
i. D. Hantzis: We presented the two constitutions for compliance. The
change made in the BCoE Constitution was minor. They adjusted their
calendar and assumption of offices in order to reconcile terms of service.
Our review found no compliance issues.
b. UCC Constitution R. Guell, C. Olsen. Vote: 7-0-0
i. D. Hantzis: I didn’t participate as a reader but in the conversation, as I am
one of the primary writers. The primary readers and the rest of the
committee found no compliance issues, but of the list of observations, the
majority are format or style issues, and there are two that must be
addressed by the UC. They aren’t out of compliance with the Handbook.
First is that by default, any chairperson is a member of the UC faculty.
Second, the concern I thought was the most insightful was the UC is a
different sort of college in that the staff is different staff. They are not
mentioned in the constitution. I don’t know how that will be reconciled.
The point of the review is we found no compliance concerns.
ii. R. Guell: Did we have to do anything more with compliance questions?
iii. D. Hantzis: Exec shares what it chooses to share with representative
colleges and says “this is fine” or “this needs work.”
iv. R. Guell: Motion that we accept the Constitution—that it is not out of
compliance.
v. D. Hantzis: FAC is only allowed to review anything new.
vi. R. Guell: BCoE are in compliance with the University Handbook. The
Executive Committee accepts that finding by FAC.
vii. R. Guell: As for University College, their Constitution in its entirety is in
compliance with the University Handbook
viii. R. Guell: I will communicate these things to the relevant bodies.
ix. D. Hantzis: Both readers are willing to have their documents looked at.
c. Election of Temporary Faculty Advocate. A. Anderson, K. Bolinger. Vote: 7-0-0
i. R. Guell: The meeting I held with any Temporary Faculty produced only
one person, and that is M. Morahn. Are there any objections?
ii. K. Yousif: Is that going to go in the revision of Section 350?
iii. D. Hantzis: No, that’s the Constitution. They don’t elect their own
representative. It’s still selection and not part of the previous revisions.
We talked about this; I spoke with L. Henson about her sense of what a
process might look like, and looked at other universities and shared
everything with FAC. What you have is a process to allow temporary
faculty who do not have voting rights a vehicle to vote for a representative
on the Senate. They don’t exist as a governance body that way. We are
recommending a couple of changes. The title should be changed from
“Advocate” to “Representative.” This is intended to be a representative.
We did a nomination process that we decided to make parallel to the
Senate process, and it should say “10” not “15.” We considered making
the requirement more stringent because they have to represent the
University. I think that members of FAC said, quite wisely, that the voting
process would be the way they participate. They need ten signatures of
temporary faculty like Senators do. The point is the nomination would be
precisely as Senators are nominated. The next process is selection. All
names would be distributed via ballots, and the results shall be sent to
Exec who will present recommendations of no fewer than three—probably
will need an “if possible” clause—that will be sent to the President and
Provost. We diverge from Senator elections in our suggestion about timing
and selection. We are asking that it take place in August, not April. There
are more temporary faculty employed in fall and not spring. The
nominations will close the Friday of the second week of classes each fall.
Voting shall commence within one week and they shall be given one week
to vote.
iv. D. Bradley: Would they automatically miss the first two meetings of the
Senate?
v. D. Hantzis: The old representative would stay until the new took over.
vi. C. MacDonald: What if I’m employed this year and was elected to this
position, and next year was not employed...
vii. D. Hantzis: The alternate representative would serve.
viii. K. Bolinger: Do we want to soften the language on that?
ix. R. Guell: Recommendation of no fewer than three if possible.
x. J. Maynard: It may be difficult to get as many as three.
xi. D. Hantzis: I think that will change. I think there are temporary faculty
who have no idea that they have representation in the Senate. L. Henson
started the ball rolling.
xii. R. Guell: L. Henson got many more responses to her communications to
them than I did to mine.
xiii. D. Bradley: We have now given temporary faculty the title Lecturer. I
would suggest we use that term.
xiv. D. Hantzis: They call other faculty “regular faculty” for the process of
election.
xv. R. Guell: There are also employees teaching a course.
xvi. D. Bradley: I just don’t want conflict.
xvii. R. Guell: Temporary faculty is defined in Section 305 and coincident with
Lecturer. Because this is a constitutional thing it would again require a
vote of the faculty and reading and the rest. Are there any other issues you
would like to discuss?
d. Response to Amorous and Familial Relationships Policy
i. R. Guell: Before motions and discussions I actually would like to state
clearly that in the document and first paragraph FAC is not excited about
the language that exists but then goes on quite responsibly to deal with the
language that does exist. We have until June. There is no rush on this. I
would like to discuss this now and give FAC the freedom to come up with
its own thoughts on what the policy should be. It asked us to abandon this
and charge the appropriate committee. I believe FAC is the appropriate
committee. My view is if FAC has a better idea on dealing with it and felt
constrained then FAC should be able to consider its own motions and we
will either vote on what FAC produced or on editing the document the
way FAC didn’t.
ii. D. Bradley: This is not simply a faculty policy.
iii. J. Maynard: We will also get Staff Council’s input. We have to allow time
for that.
iv. D. Bradley: It was suggested to me that half the problem with this policy
is the name. If we can think about other names—basically, it’s a Conflict
of Interest Policy.
v. D. Hantzis: Conflict of Personal Interest.
vi. R. Guell: D. Hantzis’ words express that very well. It’s not just people you
love but people you hate with a fiery passion that you have a conflict of
interest with. Whether it is teaching our children, significant other, or the
person we would like to crucify it is about fair, unbiased evaluation and
treatment.
vii. D. Bradley: First and foremost it is about disclosure. Once you explain
that it’s happening that conversation’s over with unless someone doesn’t
like it.
viii. J. Maynard: I don’t think disclosure is far enough on some relationships.
ix. D. Bradley: The one you disclose to has to be okay with it.
x. R. Guell: My son was in my class in the fall and the spring. I told J.
Conant about it, put the rubric and my son’s work in front of him, and
gave him parallel work. We dealt with it.
xi. D. Bradley: The supervisor should have some flexibility.
xii. D. Hantzis: We have made substantial comments. The revision is good.
Frankly it seemed at time that whoever drafted it was embarrassed.
There’s an unwritten giggle throughout the document. Additionally,
“sexual” and “amorous” are used as the same term. T. Hawkins said there
are better ways to say this that are more simple. There should be
disclosure and a consent agreement. I don’t discount the work that was
done to rewrite it.
xiii. D. Bradley: In the Financial Aid audit a mother had reviewed the FAFSA
for the daughter. There was no problem other than there was a mistake in
the FAFSA which was not detected, and that makes the employee
vulnerable. It could have come out looking really badly. It is protection for
the employee and the student both.
xiv. K. Bolinger: We have two situations. One is an evaluation piece in which
you may evaluate the work of a son or girlfriend, and the other is
supervision. It doesn’t say, “I need to inform you that I am sleeping with a
faculty member.” Do you want that distinction?
xv. D. Bradley: Those are just two ends of the spectrum. Often it is somewhat
evaluative and somewhat supervisory.
xvi. K. Bolinger: Should they be the same then? Inform my supervisor that the
relationship exists or “I hate this faculty member” and tell them what steps
I’m taking to make sure they are evaluated fairly? It seems here that I have
to sever that relationship.
xvii. D. Hantzis: You are right to raise that as a more complex point. Where a
supervisor’s decision had to be made we would just have a substitute.
Some decisions are not codified.
xviii. K. Bolinger: It would include not just me having a familial relationship
but maybe a longstanding grudge. I think language needs to be changed to
allow for flexibility.
xix. D. Bradley: Broad language gives supervisors flexibility to adjust what
changes need to be made.
xx. K. Bolinger: 912.2.1 needs to be changed.
xxi. R. Guell: At the next FAC meeting, could you ask colleagues whether they
really want what they asked for, and if they do, give it to them?
xxii. D. Hantzis: Once we’re done with Section 305.
xxiii. R. Guell: I do agree with the excising of the entirety of the section which
feels like it is largely justification that doesn’t need to be written.
xxiv. D. Hantzis: We say it’s overwritten.
xxv. R. Guell: I’m not sure really that FAC will come up with anything better
than what they edited this down to. They should be given the opportunity
to do so. We would like to coordinate our input with Staff Council.
xxvi. D. Bradley: I have put K. Butwin on this too.
e. Section 305
i. D. Hantzis: I think we’re in good shape regarding Section 305. We’d also
like to help Nursing move forward. We started drafting a statement of
special provisions for independent reviewers and trying to identify titles,
as well as situations in which it would be appropriate for another
independent review to be a part of one’s own annual review portfolio. I
have been charged with drafting the stipulation that this is never okay
unless there is an accreditation mandate and that is verified. Sometimes
they want the expert to write a review of your teaching. In some cases the
faculty member has to ensure a PT person has reviewed his or her file like
an external reviewer would. There’s that vs. the Executive Director of
Nursing title which says they have to look at each and every one of them. I
am less confident recommending whether we make the Executive Director
on a level with department or college. The independent reviews should
probably occur at the department level. I still think Dean is a superior
position. These are programmatic requirements, not college requirements.
I am less sure whether we can make changes in 350, 351, and 352.
ii. R. Guell: Those issues at least need to be identified and on to the next
year’s group.
iii. D. Hantzis: We identified the problem. The problem is we have an entire
section that defines a department. The “School” definition does not exist.
9. Adjournment 4:58pm